To tell the truth, I'm simmering angry, so I'm not going to write very much on this topic: I'd rather people read it and make their own judgement. What's now the top thread on Jay Rosen's Press Think starts off to be a post on how Cheney wasn't so much mistaken not calling in the White House press s purposefully dissing them. All well and good, and I might even be convinced to agree with him. (Now, Rosen doesn't think this is a good thing, but I frankly do. But that's for another time.)

However, follow down the thread and see what Steve Lovelady, of the Columbia Journalism Review, has to say. It comes down to, basically, that neither the people who talked to the police, nor the police reports themselves in Kenedy County Texas are reliable, because it's a "feudalism."

But that while Lovelady says the reports are unreliable and (apparently) believes they're false, that doesn't mean that he thinks the people involved are "lying."

What's more, it appears that the people involved couldn't be troubled to read the actual police report (at Smoking Gun) or spend the few seconds (literally!) Googling to determine that the guy who was on the scene at the time, Constable Ramiro Medellin, was in fact a police officer listed in the county's web page.

I suggested to Lovelady that he call Constable Medellin and ask his reaction to the suggestion that he made a false report. So far as I can tell, he hasn't tried it yet.

22
comments:

Hang out with fools and you will get heart attack you deserve. CJR is hopeless, as is the MSM in general. We need to go around these guys, not waste time argueing with them. It's not like they have the slightest clue.

Call me a romantic, call me a cynic -- hell, call me a romantic cynic -- but Charles, it seems to me that you are dodging the larger point here. No one is calling Ramiro Medellin a liar. But, as Ron Brynaert points out above, neither Medellin (nor any other employee on the payroll of the Armstrong Ranch) can be considered "an impartial witness" -- not when Katharine Armstrong, the boss lady, has already issued her version of events.

----Steve Lovelady

Steve Lovelady is definitely suggesting that Ramiro Medellin might be a liar. At best, he says the constable could be financially coerced into not telling the truth. So what? Lovelady is still questioning Medellin’s integrity.

I forgot. The schmuck in question made a huge deal about Cheney not personally phoning the police and then turned around and acted as if it was Cheney who personally turned the cop away from the gate - and never acknowledged that a constable (and therefore, a local peace officer) was present at all times.

Recall Mr. Jordan's November 2004 statement: "The reality is that at least 10 journalists have been killed by the US military, and according to reports I believe to be true journalists have been arrested and tortured by US forces."

Finally, recall that on April 11, 2003, Jordan revealed that CNN knew about human rights abuses committed in Iraq by Saddam Hussein since 1990, but the network refrained from coverage of them in order to gain better access to information on Hussein's government.

Jordan resigned as CNN's chief news executive on February 11, 2005.

But back to Lovelady. Here's his attack on those who would question John Kerry's war record. (By the way, Kerry still hasn't released his military records, has he?)

People like Rosen and Lovelady really should seek some therapy. Not everything that happens in this world, not every breath someone they detest takes, has deep, dark meaning. The sun doesn't rise and set as part of some nefarious plot against them.

Isn't there a sane person in the entire world of the MSM? Isn't there anyone who gathers some of these conspiracy lovin' loons into conference rooms to explain to them that they are behaving like idiots?

I find it incredible that people are still even talking about this non-story. And the conspiracy loons are out in force. How sad their lives must be that they must hide under the covers wearing their tin foil hats at night so the Rovian Rays don't get them. But they'll not be taken in by the truth...nosiree.....I wonder how many of them have seen this Time poll? 52% of Americans think Cheney did the right thing.

I was on the post the better part of the weekend--My response I just posted on Rosen's site: "...neither Medellin (nor any other employee on the payroll of the Armstrong Ranch) can be considered "an impartial witness" -- not when Katharine Armstrong, the boss lady, has already issued her version of events.In a vast county (approximately 30 miles by 50 miles) with a population of only 414 souls --down from 553 in 1980 -- jobs are scarce. Most of them are going to be availabe only at the 50,000-acre ranch that dominates the county. Feudalism, anyone ?No wonder Cheney likes the place. What's not to like ?" Wow Mr.Lovejoy--you must be a journalism school professor--Feudalism? What part of private hunting party do you have a problem with? Because the VEEP was hunting one a private ranch he should have had impartial witnesses along lest he pepper one of his companions and we can get someone other than the "serfs?" I assume you would not believe the secret service guys or anyone else in the VEEPs entourage: they are, perforce, all "partial."

If you are involved in the training of journalist, I can see what the profession is in disrepute--Continue to pump out your J-school graduates with the snotty attitudes that you exude, and the press approval rating will be even lower than it is now.

I disagree. The sick bastards (IMO) can definitely "see it". I read Rosen's piece and it is artful propaganda - much more so than Lovelady's laughable conjecture. Rosen continues to promulgate the concept of journo's as "priests" capable of "discernment". He is very incensed that the WH refuses to accord the priesthood the status that he feels they deserve and spends a gazillion words informing his readership as to the "danger" of such a move.

No doubt they are infuriated. Lovelady seems like an absolute loon who thinks Shrub is the Anti-Christ. Dismiss him out of hand.

Rosen is clearly the more clever of the two and sees, at least potentially, what is really going on.

Reagan was an unusually good communicator and given the fecklessness of Carter people wanted to listen to Reagan. I don't want to downplay the achievement but the situation was ripe for Reagan to be able to go over the heads of the MSM and right to the American public. The MSM screamed and yelled and did everything they could but there was no way to stop it.

Bush is, of course, not nearly as skilled a communicator as Reagan was. Few people are. Some assign enormous communications skills to Clinton but he is not in the same league as Reagan was. A hostile press would have eaten Clinton alive. He didn't have to go directly to the people, the MSM was perfectly willing to help him package his message and deliver it door to door.

Bush has ordinary communications skills. He isn't half as bad as the hostile press and the elites make him out to be, but he's no Reagan. And the MSM learned its lesson with Reagan. They aren't letting anybody go over their heads again.

So Bush has done the next best thing. He just basically ignores the bastards. He sends his press sec out to make sure they have sammiches and such, but that's about it. He knew they were hostile on day 1 and they'd remain hostile for the duration. Why try to win them over?

Rosen's pissed 'cause a man he considers an idiot has figured out how to marginalize him.

Considering how many of us have decided to screw the MSM and severely limit how much we listen and watch, is it any surprise that Bush has decided screw the media and to severely limit how much he talks to them. Seems perfectly reasonable to me.

Terrye, I think my last post on the thread made just that point: that when they continue to insist that there must have been a conspiracy and cover-up, in the face of everything *including* the victim's own delials just makes them look like fools.

AAAARGH--now I am even more irritated that Charlie--This Lovelady person took a post of mine, siezed on the fact that I used lovejoy rather than lovelady and then totally misrepresented my post--anyway--not looking for your sympathies as I am quite capable of fighting my own battles--says a lot about the MSM. My issue with Mr Lovewhatever continues on Rosen's blog.